thehill.com/policy/defense/276205-watchdog-army-didnt-fully-assess-risks-in-planned-cuts
By Rebecca Kheel - 04/13/16
The Government Accountability Office says the Army didn't properly look at all factors when deciding to make cuts to its force.
A report released Wednesday faults the Army for not considering "mission risk" when deciding how many positions to cut from so-called enabler units, which are groups with special tasks, such as the military police, explosives disposal and transportation.“The Army’s planned force structure is based on an incomplete assessment of mission risk across its combat and enabler force structure because it did not assess this type of risk for its enabler units,” the report says.
“As a result the Army did not comprehensively assess whether its force structure will be able to meet the missions specified in defense planning guidance and, in the absence of that risk assessment, was not well positioned to assess mitigation options when making recent force structure decisions.”
The Army plans to drop to 980,000 active and reserve soldiers by 2018, down about 132,000 positions from 2011.
Forty-four percent, or 58,000 positions, will be cut from enabler units, according to the GAO.
The percent of cuts coming from those units is proportionally high, the GAO says. For example, 22 percent of cuts are coming from combat units.
Combat units were prioritized over enabler units because it’s easier to resolve shortfalls in the specialized units, Army officials told the GAO. For example, it takes a minimum of 32 months to build an armored brigade combat team, compared to nine moths to build certain enabler units.
The Army though didn’t assess mission risk when deciding to cut enablers, which means mission demands could be missed, according to the GAO.
For example, other analyses done outside the process to decide the cuts found planned reductions in truck units could limit the Army’s ability to transport troops around the battlefield. As a result, the Army will actually add four medium truck companies to its force structure by the end of 2019, the report says.
In a written response included in the report, the Army said it agrees with the GAO’s findings.
“The Army recognizes the need to conduct a mission risk assessment of not only its combat forces, but also its planned enabler force structure as part of Total Army Analysis,” the response says, referring to the process used to identify cuts. “The Army has previously identified this need and now incorporates a comprehensive mission risk assessment and associated assessments of mitigation strategies for identified risk into Total Army Analysis.”
Planned reductions in the Army have been a concern for defense hawks in Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would halt the cuts.
By Rebecca Kheel - 04/13/16
The Government Accountability Office says the Army didn't properly look at all factors when deciding to make cuts to its force.
A report released Wednesday faults the Army for not considering "mission risk" when deciding how many positions to cut from so-called enabler units, which are groups with special tasks, such as the military police, explosives disposal and transportation.“The Army’s planned force structure is based on an incomplete assessment of mission risk across its combat and enabler force structure because it did not assess this type of risk for its enabler units,” the report says.
“As a result the Army did not comprehensively assess whether its force structure will be able to meet the missions specified in defense planning guidance and, in the absence of that risk assessment, was not well positioned to assess mitigation options when making recent force structure decisions.”
The Army plans to drop to 980,000 active and reserve soldiers by 2018, down about 132,000 positions from 2011.
Forty-four percent, or 58,000 positions, will be cut from enabler units, according to the GAO.
The percent of cuts coming from those units is proportionally high, the GAO says. For example, 22 percent of cuts are coming from combat units.
Combat units were prioritized over enabler units because it’s easier to resolve shortfalls in the specialized units, Army officials told the GAO. For example, it takes a minimum of 32 months to build an armored brigade combat team, compared to nine moths to build certain enabler units.
The Army though didn’t assess mission risk when deciding to cut enablers, which means mission demands could be missed, according to the GAO.
For example, other analyses done outside the process to decide the cuts found planned reductions in truck units could limit the Army’s ability to transport troops around the battlefield. As a result, the Army will actually add four medium truck companies to its force structure by the end of 2019, the report says.
In a written response included in the report, the Army said it agrees with the GAO’s findings.
“The Army recognizes the need to conduct a mission risk assessment of not only its combat forces, but also its planned enabler force structure as part of Total Army Analysis,” the response says, referring to the process used to identify cuts. “The Army has previously identified this need and now incorporates a comprehensive mission risk assessment and associated assessments of mitigation strategies for identified risk into Total Army Analysis.”
Planned reductions in the Army have been a concern for defense hawks in Congress. Republicans in the House and Senate have introduced bills that would halt the cuts.
No comments:
Post a Comment